River Edge Land Use Board

BOROUGH OF RIVER EDGE LAND USE BOARD MEETING MINUTES ZOOM MEETING August 25, 2021 Zoom - Meeting called order at 7:30 Chairman Caslin made the required announcement concerning the Executive Orders 103 and 104 Open Public Meetings Act and N.J.A.C. 5-39-1.1 to 1.7: Adequate notice of this meeting has been displayed on both the bulletin board at Borough Hall, and published in the Record and Ridgewood News for the people who are interested in this meeting. The meeting is being recorded electronically through ZOOM. No flag salute. Meetings are held electronically via ZOOM. To join the hearing via smart phone, computer or tablet. log in information and a link to the meeting will also be posted on the Borough web site at https://www.riveredgenj.org/. Members of the public may submit written comments in advance of a meeting, which will be read during the public portion of the meeting. Written public comments submitted prior to the meeting must identify the name and address of the commenter8. No anonymous comments will be accepted. Written comments may be submitted via e-mail with the subject line “Public Comment” to the Municipal Land Use Clerk, Ed Alter at ealter@riveredgenj.org or by mail addressed to: Ed Alter, Municipal Land Use Clerk, Borough of River Edge, 705 Kinderkamack Road, River Edge, NJ 07661. E-mailed comments must be received at least forty eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. Mailed comments must be received by 12:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. If you would like to make a public comment during the meeting, please press the “Raise Hand” button on Zoom or dialing *9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. The Board will address you by name or by the last 4 digits of your telephone number. The Board will unmute your microphone. You must state your name and address prior to making a public comment. You may also mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing *6 on your telephone keypad. Members of the public are permitted to submit written comments prior to the meeting via mail or email which will be read during the public comments period. Roll call: Mayor Papaleo – Here Chairman Chris Caslin- Here Mr. Mehrman - Here James Arakelian – Here Lou Grasso - Absent Ryan Gibbons - Here Michael Krey – Here -1-  Eileen Boland – Excused Dario Chinigo – Excused Gary Esposito – Here Bruce Feffer - Here ALSO PRESENT: Marina Stinley, Esq., Mr. Costa and Steve Lyden (Burgis Assoc.) · Approval of Minutes – August 11, 2021 – Approved (Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Arakelian abstained) · · Memorializations Betsy and Matthew Grosser – Variance for maximum improved lot coverage – 68 Wayne Avenue, Block 814, Lot 21 Motion to approve Resolution – So made – Mr. Krey; Second – Mr. Mehrman. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Mr. Mehrman -yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes. Mr. Arakelian and Mr. Gibbons are ineligible to vote. Motion passes. Completeness Review Amanda and Paul Gregov – 470 Windsor Road, Block 815, Lot 16 – Installation of in ground pool, patio and cabana, maximum lot coverage, maximum improved lot coverage and side yard setback relief are required. Ms. Stinley advises the Board that they have jurisdiction to hear the application. Mr. Lyden advises the Board that the documents they received were reviewed by him and Mr. Behrens and they believe it is complete to go forward with the hearing process. Motion to approve completeness – So made- Mr. Gibbons; Second – Mr. Arakelian. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Mr. Mehrman -yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes and Mr. Gibbons - yes . Motion passes. New Businesses Amanda and Paul Gregov – 470 Windsor Road, Block 815, Lot 16 – Installation of in ground pool, patio and cabana, maximum lot coverage, maximum improved lot coverage and side yard setback relief are required. Applicants are sworn in. Ms. Stinley swears in two experts – Michael O'Brien, landscape architect and Paul Gdanski, civil engineer. Both experts approved by the Board. The applicants give an over view of their application to the Board. When the applicants submitted their plans there was 56% impervious coverage. The applicants show the Board a 3D -2- rendering of their pool (Exhibit A1), patio and cabana design. Once they submitted their plans they learned what the Borough/Board normally approves regarding impervious coverage and they were well over that number. They show the Board an alternate site plan removing a whole bunch of patio, areas in red they are planning to remove and the shifting of the cabana (Exhibit A2) bringing the coverage now to 48% which still includes the cabana (12 x 16). The side yard setback would be negated with the give back of patio area. The applicant shows a third 3D image (Exhibit A3) showing a significant amount of reduction on both sides of the pool and moving the cabana closer to the pool maintaining a large amount of green space, installing a white fence, significant landscaping and adding three seepage pits. The applicants advise the Board that they realize 48% is more than the Board normally approves. They believe this design is a benefit to the public/neighbors and they would like the Boards consideration of the 48%. Mr. O'Brien explains to the Board that in the the Exhibit A3 they are trying to maintain a three foot walkway around the pool. He recommends to his clients three feet of walkway around the pool, not only for aesthetics but for safety reasons. He explains that they made a significant change to the size of the pool. He always recommends to his clients a 16 x 32 pool, the applicants are proposing a 14 x 28 to fit in with certain coverages and setbacks. He feels going any smaller with the pool would not be proportionate with the rest of the yard and design. Mr. Gdanski explains the drainage calculations. It was designed for two inches of rainfall over the surface area over the improvements they want to add. That would be 3 Cultec 330XLHD units and there will be drains around the pool diverting water into the Cultec units which will percolate into the ground. Mr. Lyden asks what is the date on the plan and what is the revision date. The revision date is 5/30/21 (this is on file). The experts states the lot coverage number shown is incorrect and it should be 28.9. Mr. Lyden goes through the drawing with Mr. Gdanski he sees existing driveway, walk and steps, existing AC, proposed pool, proposed patio and walk and proposed equipment pad. There is a wall that surrounds the cabana, the back of the deck which was not included in the impervious calculations. Apparently they are stones and can be removed. The black line is a drain that collects the rain. They will make the cabana under 12 feet to make it in compliance. Mr. O'Brien explains that the cabana will be an open air cabana with four pressure treated posts, pressure treated under frame, asphalt shingles to match the roof on the home. Proposed columns or pillars to surround the post. Utilities proposed is electricity. No plumbing, water lines, kitchen etc. They landscape designer discusses the fence, because on the drawing a chain link fence is shown and in the 3D rendering a white PVC fence is shown. Mr. Lyden discusses the fact that the drawings submitted is much different than the 3D rendering. The applicants explain that the 3D rendering is just to give the Board an idea of what they would like to do with their backyard. Mr. Lyden explains that the only benefit that has been suggested is that screening and landscaping be provided. He explains that, is really not the criteria for the grant of a C2 variance which is what the statute requires. It shows that the variance which in this case is 56% impervious coverage will advance the intent and purposes of the municipal land use law and that the benefits of granting the variance substantially outweigh any potential detriments and addresses the negative criteria as detailed and when its a C2 the benefits are not suppose to go to the property owner but they are to accrue to the surrounding community. Mr. Lyden is having difficulty understanding how 56% impervious coverage benefits the neighborhood. Its not the fence that creates the variance its everything else being proposed and he is not sure how 56% impervious coverage benefits the neighbors and the the testimony regarding drainage is to address the additional run off generated by the proposed development so that is not a benefit to the public. Mr. -3- Lyden does not understand how the statutory criteria is being met in this application. The applicants feel that the amount of benefit they are giving is a positive and that there is no detriment to anyone. The applicants keep coming back to the drainage they are installing. The applicants remind Mr. Lyden that they have readdressed their plans and are asking now for 48% not the original 56%. Mr. Costa reminds the Board that the application before the Board is for 56% and the applicants have amended the application to 48%. He asks Mr. Gdanski if he revised his plan to show the new values to which he answered, no. Mr. Costa suggests the new plan should be on file. Mr. Feffer suggests dialogue with the Board members. Mr. Feffer's concern is that 48% can be scaled back even more. He asks the applicants if they are open to scaling back further and if so, would they have an idea where further scaling back could be done. The applicants state that they want to work with the Board to make this application work. Mr. O'Brien states the only thing he thinks will reduce the 48% further would be removing a large amount of the patio area, leaving very little patio usage by the applicants. Mr. Gdanski agrees with Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Krey explains to the applicants that they keep mentioning that things are proportional and that there is a lot of green space, but by the standards the Board is working with the applicants are not. The standard is 35% and the Board makes exceptions up to 40% and even with the revised plan the applicants are still almost at 50%. They do not meet code. He suggests possibly removing the cabana. Mr. Gibbons brings up the point that the lot coverage shows 26.4% which makes it already over on a new build, leaving the applicants .1% . He thinks maybe this is an issue for the building department. He also is concerned with the 48%, 40% has been the number. Mr. Esposito also concurs with the 40%. Mayor Papaleo suggested framing the conversation differently He states that the professionals are advocating for the applicants as they are giving back and that's not what is happening with this application. The 35% is the maximum, state statute requires the Borough to have a positive and negative reason to grant something above that so its not a matter of giving back and their professionals have done a great job with the rendering but that is not how the law works. Just the pool would be 40.1%. He would be comfortable with possibly 40 -40.5% ad there would have to be some positive/negative criteria presented by the professionals that would allow the Board to vote yes for the 40 -40.5%. The landscape architect advises that even with the pool at 14 x 28 with nothing else but the pool, they still have to account for the one foot of couping that goes around the pool, so in theory it is actual a 16 x 30 because of the impervious banner around it they will still be over 1% to 41%, 81 square feet over what is allowable. Mr. Arakelian again states the problem with the builders bringing houses out to the 35% which is allowed by the town and with Covid a lot of residents are looking to install pools and the Board has been running to this overage problem quite a bit. Mr. Arakelian agrees with the rest of the Board regarding the percentages. He explains that the Board is not an enforcement agency. Mr. Mehrman addresses Mr. Gdanski regarding the removal of five trees. Mr. Gdanski advises that was an error. Mr. Mehrman makes the following suggestion. That the applicants make the pool half the size, remove part of the existing deck and cabana and for shade coverage use an umbrella or an awning that can move in or out to see if they can get to the 40%. The applicants ask Mr. Mehrman if they remove the patio between the deck and the pool it would bring them somewhere in the 43/44% range which was approved by the Board less than a year ago for the Jackubi's on Park Avenue would the Board consider that and they would keep the three seepage pits which put them above and beyond the amount they need. Mr. Mehrman came back with he adheres to the 40%. The applicants continue to reiterate the 43% that was approved for the Jakubi's. Mr. Mehrman explains the precedence he claims the applicants are arguing comfort and the Board is arguing statute. He suggests they go over the list of things he gave them to consider getting them to the 40% wherein the Board is being generous with that. Mr. Caslin suggests that the applicants try to see what they can do to revise their plans and come back before the Board and they can carry them to another meeting. A motion was made to open to the public at the applicants requests. The applicants had several neighbors who supported their -4- application and had no issues with the plans that the applicants presented to the Board and were very happy to have them as neighbors stating that they were a great addition to the town and as neighbors. They were all in favor of the project. The neighbors who spoke were Kim Sherk; Chris Gildea. Motion was made to carry the application so the applicants could submit revised plans. So moved – Mayor Papaleo; Second – Mr. Mehrman. The matter will be carried to October 13th. Roll call – Mayor Papaleo – yes; Chairman Caslin – yes; Mr. Mehrman -yes; Mr. Krey- yes; Mr. Feffer – yes; Mr. Esposito – yes; Mr. Arakelian - yes and Mr. Gibbons - yes . Motion passes. Mr. Gibbons brings up the fact that this is the third time the Board has run into the situation they ran into this evening. He feels the Board needs to figure something out with the builders leaving applicants 1%. He feels it's not right to the homeowners and if houses are being over built it is not good for the Board. Mr. Mehrman agreed with Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Arakelian suggests the Borough change the ordinance to 30% instead of 35% so when the builders come in with their building plans they are down to 30% and then the Board can grant them a variance if some one wants to build a deck and so forth because right know the builders are building right to the edge an leaving no flexibility for the homeowners. If the Borough would revisit the ordinance and limit it to 30 or 32% it would limit the builders. The Mayor asks the Board to make a recommendation to the Council and for that recommendation to be reviewed by Mr. Behrens and Ms. Stinley so that it comes before the Council as a formal request from the land use board. Ms. Stinley advises that she has been working with Brian Chewcaskie, Redevelopment Counsel for River Edge, Tom Behrens and Lizette the Borough Administrator. They pulled all the building permits that were issue in the past two years and found about forty residential properties that looked like they were new builds on an old foundation just so they could see what is happening in the Borough. She suggests that she work with Mr. Behrens, Mr. Chewcaskie and Lizette to put a Resolution together for the Council to ask for them to address the issue. Mr. Caslin suggests the Board make this an agenda item since several Board members are not present. Mr. Arakelian also suggest that Mr. Behrens and Mr. Costa get together and come up with a number that they think is fair to both the builders and the homeowners. Mr. Costa speaks about an FAR (full area ratio) once it goes over a certain percentage of that then everything becomes a D variance and we want to increase that and for whatever reason it never went through. Then there was a discussion again to go from 35 feet to 32 feet. Then there was the small lot ordinance. Then when people starting building bigger homes putting them on the ranches and the ranches are five feet off of the property line there was never a setback so the 5 foot remained and the house went up to 32 feet and that caused a lot of grief. Mr. Costa states that the Board should always have a set of plans in front of them so they can say here is what it says, here are the setbacks, here's all the information and then it goes into the Resolution. The subcommittee that was put into place on this subject needs to address the Board as to where they are on this subject. Mr. Gibbons speaks about minimum amount of green space on smaller lots (50 x 100) that can be in an ordinance. Is there a way to keep these huge lots from going crazy but helping the small lots that don't have room to put in a patio or deck. Mr. Costa does not believe that the pool fad will not last much longer. Mr. Krey asks if there can be some sort of disclosure from the seller to the buyer as to percentages. Discussion goes back and forth regarding the issue of percentages and how they can be addressed. Motion to adjourn meeting – So moved Mr. Arakelian. All in favor Aye. Meeting adjourned. -5-